We're not sure how much he understands about where/what he is. Even the concept of refictionalization might be a bit extreme at the moment. We should probably move toward it gradually through comments on his blog.

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after.

Now that Adam was refictionalized, Sandy made a final post on his blog (dunno how she got hold of the password, but with elephants ).

First, HOLYSHITMORECATS. Dunno if she'll reply, but I've already made an inqury about their polydactyly. Second, that post shows that Shelley wasn't fictionalized, she was duplicated as a character. So, makes sense, I guess. But then, why can't we do the same with real people?

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

Presumably because that would sort of make us monsters?I mean, cats don't really have personality to speak of, so with elephants.But to essentially clone a two-dimensional version of a real person, and stick him/her into a fictional world... that starts to get creepy and wrong.

Why are we even arguing about a dead fictional dude and hypothetical ninjas?

Presumably because that would sort of make us monsters?I mean, cats don't really have personality to speak of, so with elephants.But to essentially clone a two-dimensional version of a real person, and stick him/her into a fictional world... that starts to get creepy and wrong.

I don't follow. It happens all the time, when we write biographies, non-fiction, including news reports and blogs and letters. It's not the least bit creepy. Some authors even write characters based directly from people they know from real life. Sherlock Holmes was supposedly based off a real world professor. And he's not just a creepy clone. He's taken on an identity and a life of his own, resembling, but distinct from the real world person he was based on. I see no difference. For example, if we had written a refic story for Adam where he ends up with a girl named Sandy who happens to be an actress, would she just be a creepy clone of a real world person, or would she be a full blown fictional character herself with her own past and personality?

If everyone would just agree with me, there would never be any problems.

Considering the inclusion of real people as characters in our refictionalization efforts, I can understand how it could cause problems. If handled well we might be able to get away with it, but if handled poorly it could cause plot holes or just take over the story with rationalizations. Shelley the fictional cat won't wonder where she came from or require a new and complicated backstory.

I am sad to learn that we can't fictionalize animals after all. But I'm glad that Shelley is safe in Sandy's care.

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after.

Presumably because that would sort of make us monsters?I mean, cats don't really have personality to speak of, so with elephants.But to essentially clone a two-dimensional version of a real person, and stick him/her into a fictional world... that starts to get creepy and wrong.

I don't follow. It happens all the time, when we write biographies, non-fiction, including news reports and blogs and letters. It's not the least bit creepy. Some authors even write characters based directly from people they know from real life. Sherlock Holmes was supposedly based off a real world professor. And he's not just a creepy clone. He's taken on an identity and a life of his own, resembling, but distinct from the real world person he was based on. I see no difference. For example, if we had written a refic story for Adam where he ends up with a girl named Sandy who happens to be an actress, would she just be a creepy clone of a real world person, or would she be a full blown fictional character herself with her own past and personality?

Biographies and such non-fiction are chronicles of events that already exist in our universe and our timeline, therefore they require no further representation. Any errors are handwaved because they are covered by the AUs that exist parallel to our world. Basing characters off of real people is not cloning because of course you don't make them exactly the same. The characters are unique in their own ways, which is what you are saying.

Yes, that is a theory, but it is the best one we have currently on this topic given the information we have. If anyone has an explanation for why there should be a SECOND instance of real events occurring, go ahead and share, because from what I know it makes very little sense. So far this has been specifically focused on fiction and has completely ignored any possibility of non-fiction involvement. Should that change, fine. However, it has not yet done so and we have no information pointing to it.

Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."

Presumably because that would sort of make us monsters?I mean, cats don't really have personality to speak of, so with elephants.But to essentially clone a two-dimensional version of a real person, and stick him/her into a fictional world... that starts to get creepy and wrong.[/quote]

I don't follow. It happens all the time, when we write biographies, non-fiction, including news reports and blogs and letters. It's not the least bit creepy. Some authors even write characters based directly from people they know from real life. Sherlock Holmes was supposedly based off a real world professor. And he's not just a creepy clone. He's taken on an identity and a life of his own, resembling, but distinct from the real world person he was based on. I see no difference. For example, if we had written a refic story for Adam where he ends up with a girl named Sandy who happens to be an actress, would she just be a creepy clone of a real world person, or would she be a full blown fictional character herself with her own past and personality?[/Biographies and such non-fiction are chronicles of events that already exist in our universe and our timeline, therefore they require no further representation. Any errors are handwaved because they are covered by the AUs that exist parallel to our world. Basing characters off of real people is not cloning because of course you don't make them exactly the same. The characters are unique in their own ways, which is what you are saying.

Yes, that is a theory, but it is the best one we have currently on this topic given the information we have. If anyone has an explanation for why there should be a SECOND instance of real events occurring, go ahead and share, because from what I know it makes very little sense. So far this has been specifically focused on fiction and has completely ignored any possibility of non-fiction involvement. Should that change, fine. However, it has not yet done so and we have no information pointing to it.[/quote]

The Wall protects FICTIONAL characters/settings/tropes, not all creative work. But what about historical fiction? Where does that end up? (I've long wanted to know what happens to 'characters' in poetry, actually.)

In life, he suffered from a sense of unreality, as do many Englishmen.

What we suggested earlier is probably the best bet. Namely, that fiction set in a historical period is fiction, and badly done "historical" accounts are real, just covered in an AU. Or maybe they don't even count. Who knows. As to fictitious events/legends surrounding real people... probably some combination of the two. Something like goofy stories of Abraham Lincoln slaying zombies would be fiction, and works of fiction such as Julius Caesar, the play, are probably also fiction, as intended by their creators. A historical account of something that didn't happen, but is widely thought to HAVE happened is probably just AU territory again.

Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."

I suppose you almost need the mens rea to create fiction. For instance, if I wrote John Maynard Keynes was a carpenter who died in 1997 and had eighteen children, I don't intend to add to Beyond The Wall. (Shame on you, by the way; there's a demographic explosion.)

In life, he suffered from a sense of unreality, as do many Englishmen.